What do you think about the UK's aircraft carrier policy?

[Redwolf]

What do you think about the UK's aircraft carrier policy?

Specifically I am talking about the decision to go with a STOVL design (skijump, no catapult, no arresting wires).

They actually wobbled. First it was STOVL, then CATOBAR (catapult + arresting wires), then back to STOVL for cost reasons. Now they can only operate the F-35B with its shorter weapons bay and lower payload. And it is not vertical landings in actuality. Unlike the US Navy which drops unused bombs in the sea the Brits land with unused bombs, and that requires a mixer approach of vertical thrust but also forward movement to have wing lift. With no arresting wires. And there are other planes (logistics, anti-submarine, tankers, early warning) that you could launch with CATOBAR but now you have to live without them.

Myself I have the first thought that I wouldn't like to be locked into one vendor. As it is now, they can only buy from Lockheed. Vendor lock-in. And the F-35 comes with extensive maintenance requirements and complex software (both onboard and for logistics/maintenance), so you are constantly at the mercy of their pricing and competence.

I see the cost argument and don't want to compare to US carriers. But the French managed to afford a CATOBAR design. The Queen Elizabeth class is kinda small, not only disabling CATOBAR, but also only holding 22 planes normally, max is 36.

Opinions?

[FarAway Sooner]

I haven't been following the dynamics of small-carriers ops and the plane trade-offs in performance that you discuss, and am too unfamiliar with the specifics of the situation to have any informed opinion.

My own cynical take is that, during periods of extended peace the primary mission of military procurement is to funnel pork back to influential politicians' districts (where applicable) and to the special interests (always applicable) that they serve.  Nothing I've seen from any of the democracies' procurement behavior or policy decisions during the Ukraine War contradicts any of that.

It's only during wartime that politicians might start to be held accountable for badly flawed procurement strategies.  The soldiers expected to use those systems pay the price initially, and depending on the military balance of power, the civilians of that county might also pay the price.

So long as a military vendor (in this case, Lockheed) is getting richer and politicians are getting re-elected, the system does what it is intended to do. 

[Redwolf]

The thing is that the Queen Elizabeth carriers are not small. They are bigger than the French CATOBAR model.

[JudgeDredd]

As I recall reading quite some time ago, they didn't want catapults and arresting wires because of extra things that can go wrong.

I can't recall where I read that or who by...might even just have been someone speculation.

I don't know about locking yourself into one vendor being a bad thing. Normally, yeah. But for high performance, complicated aircraft? It's not like you can swap them out often.

I was surprised to see how few aircraft they could operate given the size of the damn things.

I was more surprised really that they didn't go nuclear for power

[Redwolf]

I think the decision not to go with nuclear propulsion has to do with the size. QE has 4 engines, needs ducting for air in and out (funnels), fuel storage and who knows what.

[ArizonaTank]

I am wondering if in the long run UK may come out of the bargain better for it.

I just can't help but think we are reaching an inflection point where in 10 or 20 years the technology will take the mission of carriers to a different kind of platform. Specifically I am wondering about unmanned aircraft and energy weapons. Will a squadron of unmanned precision strike aircraft still need a large carrier? Will energy weapons provide a more efficient form of ship defense, allowing a smaller footprint on ships?

If the answer is that smaller "carriers" can still perform the mission with these new technologies, then the UK may have stumbled into the right answer; presumably converting their smaller carriers to the new technologies at a lower cost. 

Heresy I know, and many have predicted the death of super-carriers before. But something in my bones tells me we are transitioning to a new era.... or maybe I've just been playing too much "Rule the Waves 3" recently...  

[Redwolf]

Directed energy weapons for air defense would make both small and large carriers more economical, no?

Just need to find a good way to protect against submarines...

[JudgeDredd]

I thought the British carriers were comparable in size to the US...in size, not asset capability

[ArizonaTank]

I'm just an old Army guy, so I may be way off...

Taking the US Gerald Ford vs. HMS Queen Elizabeth. Ford is @100K tons while QE is @65K tons.  Length Ford is 330m vs. 280m for QE.  Ford has over 4000 crew, while QE is not even 700. Ford has 75+ aircraft (Wikipedia is not clear), vs. 36 F-35s on QE.

Source is Wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt.